Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Question about CPL carrying in WA schools??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2

    Question about CPL carrying in WA schools??

    First time ever posting here...forgive me, please, if this topic has been covered. I looked around for a couple hours and saw some info but not specific enough so here goes:

    I understand that in the course of my regular "coming and going" on school grounds - that is, dropping off children, picking them up, etc - I can carry my concealed weapon with my WA CPL. Does this extend to parent/teacher conferences and athletic events? I'm not a paranoid person, but I've been carrying with a CPL since I turned 21 and now find myself having to cross this barrier for the first time and I feel completely naked w/out my sidearm under my jacket at highschool sporting events. While certainly not wanting to give our community a bad name, I'm also not afraid to be a test case as I believe it's a little bit crazy and naive to outlaw the lawful carrying on school grounds especially in light of school shootings over the past decade or so. Anyway, any insight or info would be appreciated. Again, my apologies if this has been covered. Great site and great info. Thanks, all.

    -007

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    2

    Thanks for quick response...

    It wasn't what I was hoping for, but pretty clear I guess. Thanks for the quick response. Want to abide by the law...even if I think it stinks. Again, thanks, and I'll keep reading and posting when I can. All the best.

    -007

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    ---snipped--

    Also, there is a Washington specific subforum on this board...FYI.
    Quote Originally Posted by lildrumboy007 View Post
    It wasn't what I was hoping for, but pretty clear I guess. Thanks for the quick response. Want to abide by the law...even if I think it stinks. Again, thanks, and I'll keep reading and posting when I can. All the best.
    -007
    Did move this to the WA sub-forum for you.

    Always is best to follow the law - even our rules address that point:
    "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Here's some more info you might be interested in about facilities used by schools......



    FIREARMS--WEAPONS--SCHOOLS--Possession of firearms in facilities used exclusively by schools


    RCW 9.41.280 prohibits possession of firearms in areas of facilities while being used exclusively by
    public or private schools. An area of a facility is used exclusively by a school when the school has
    sole possession, control, or use of an area of the facility, regardless of the duration of the use.


    * * * * * * * * * *


    January 12, 1994


    Honorable Linda Smith
    State Senator, District 18
    205 Institutions Building, MS 40418
    Olympia, WA 98504-0418


    Cite as: AGO 1994 No. 1


    Dear Senator Smith:
    By letter previously acknowledged you requested our interpretation of Engrossed Substitute
    Senate Bill (ESSB) 5307, which was enacted as Laws of 1993, ch. 347. ESSB 5307 amended RCW
    9.41.280 to prohibit the possession of firearms (and other weapons) in "areas of facilities while
    being used exclusively by public or private schools". Your question, which asks for an
    interpretation of the quoted language, is:
    Does "exclusively" mean prolonged exclusive use as when a school rents a building
    for an extended period solely for school activities, like an off campus classroom, or
    does it include sporadic use of a multi-use facility such as the Kingdome during the
    football playoffs?
    BRIEF ANSWER
    We conclude that the term "used exclusively" refers to uses where the school or schools have
    sole possession, control, or use of an area of a facility. It is not limited by the duration of the use.
    ANALYSIS
    Before the 1993 legislative session, RCW 9.41.280(1) prohibited an "elementary or
    secondary school student under the age of twenty-one knowingly to carry onto public or private
    elementary or secondary school premises" a firearm, among other weapons. ESSB 5307 broadened
    both the class of persons subject to the prohibition and the areas to which the prohibition applied.
    The amendatory language reads:
    (1) It is unlawful for ((an elementary or secondary school student under the
    age of twenty-one knowingly)) a person to carry onto public or private elementary or
    secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities
    while being used exclusively by public or private schools:
    (a) Any firearm[.]
    Laws of 1993, ch. 347, 1, p. 1388.
    In interpreting a statute, the court's primary objective is to ascertain and carry out the intent
    of the Legislature. Rozner v. Bellevue, 116 Wn.2d 342, 804 P.2d 24 (1991); Cherry v. Municipality
    of Metropolitan Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). This objective governs the
    interpretation of penal, as well as civil, statutes. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 119 Wn.2d 167, 172,
    829 P.2d 1082 (1992); State v. Clark, 96 Wn.2d 686, 638 P.2d 572 (1982). Penal statutes, however,
    are construed more strictly according to the plain meaning of their words to ensure that citizens have
    adequate notice of the proscribed conduct. Johnson, supra; State v. Shipp, 93 Wn.2d 510, 610 P.2d
    1322 (1980).
    In particular, when statutory language is ambiguous, the "rule of lenity" generally requires
    the ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant. State v. Martin, 102 Wn.2d 300, 684 P.2d 1290
    (1984). The rule of lenity is not absolute. It "does not require a forced, narrow, or overstrict
    construction which defeats the intent of the legislature." State v. Johnson, supra, 119 Wn.2d at 172;
    quoting State v. Cann, 92 Wn.2d 193, 197-98, 595 P.2d 912 (1979).
    In our opinion, the plain meaning of RCW 9.41.280 makes it unlawful to carry a firearm
    onto areas of facilities where schools have sole possession, control, or use, regardless of the
    temporal duration of the use. To derive a durational limitation from "used exclusively" would be a
    forced construction that is contrary to the plain meaning of the language, and contrary to the
    legislative intent, of ESSB 5307.
    Again, ESSB 5307 prohibits persons from possessing weapons in "areas of facilities while
    being used exclusively by public or private schools". "Exclusively" modifies the word "used".
    Thus, ESSB 5307 did not prohibit weapon possession in every facility used by a school, but only in
    those used "exclusively" by the school. In construing a word that is not otherwise defined in the
    statute, it is appropriate to resort to a dictionary definition. American Legion Post No. 32 v. Walla
    Walla, 116 Wn.2d 1, 802 P.2d 784 (1991). "Exclusive" is defined as "excluding or having power to
    exclude" and "limiting or limited to possession, control, or use (as by a single individual or
    organization or by a special group or class)". Webster's Third New International Dictionary 793
    (1981). Thus, if the school can exclude other potential users of a facility, the school has "exclusive
    use" of the facility. The definition, of itself, implies no limit on the duration of the exclusive use.
    The context of words in a statute also may help in interpreting the words. State v. Stockton,
    97 Wn.2d 528, 647 P.2d 21 (1982). The context of "used exclusively" indicates that the term has no
    durational meaning. The weapon prohibition applies to facilities "while being used exclusively" by
    schools. "While", of course, does refer to duration. It means "during the time that". Webster's
    Third New International Dictionary 2604 (1981). Read in context, "while being used exclusively"
    indicates that the weapons prohibition applies during the time that the school (or schools) has sole
    possession, control, or use of a facility. The statutory prohibition thus extends to all exclusive uses,
    whether the use is prolonged or sporadic. Because "while" supplies the durational limits on the
    weapons prohibition, it may be assumed that the Legislature did not intend for "used exclusively" to
    impose an additional durational limitation.
    The legislative history of ESSB 5307 also suggests the Legislature was concerned about
    safeguarding facilities where school activities would be held, regardless of whether the use was
    "prolonged". The relevant parts of section 1 of ESSB 5307, as it passed the Senate in March 1993,
    stated:
    It is unlawful for ((an elementary or secondary school student under the age
    of twenty one knowingly)) a person to carry onto public or private elementary or
    secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or athletic facilities
    leased by public or private schools:
    (a) Any firearm[.]
    ESSB 5307 was amended in the House to incorporate the current language, and the Senate
    concurred in the House's amendment. The language of the House amendment was apparently
    intended to encompass the lease of athletic facilities included in the Senate version (which by their
    nature might be used only on a "sporadic" basis) and to broaden the provision to also include other
    facilities used exclusively by schools. The amendatory language expanded the prohibition to all
    facilities, and areas of facilities, regardless of the nature of the schools' use or the means by which
    the possession of the facilities is obtained.
    For these reasons, we believe the term "used exclusively" in RCW 9.41.280 refers to sole
    use, possession, or control of a facility, regardless of the duration of the use.


    Yours very truly,
    THORNTON WILSON
    Assistant Attorney General

  5. #5
    Regular Member HK_dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    144
    so just to clarify... if i were to go to a football game at French Field at Kent Meridian HS, i can have it locked in the car out of sight, *on school property*, that's ok as long as it's not on me? because i have "legitimate business" (paid admission) there?
    US Constitution - void where prohibited by law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Firearms are also prohibited inside day care centers as part of the licensing requirements contained in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
    Will you, please, cite more specificly.
    Last edited by DCKilla; 09-27-2012 at 11:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    WAC 170-295-5020

    It looks to be a requrement for staff memebers of a child care center, but not parents. I imagine if they see the firearm, they are required to remove it from the facility. Depending on location, a child care center might fall under RCW 9.41.280.

  8. #8
    Regular Member HK_dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
    Correct.
    thanks.
    US Constitution - void where prohibited by law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Question about CPL carrying in WA schools??

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The WAC is very clear. "ensure no firearm is on the premises." If a firearm were carried onto the premises by a parent, would not a firearm still be on the premises regardless of who was in possession of it? If the firearm carried by Joe Parent was discovered at the day care center, and the Department of Licensing was notified, and the DOL asked the operators, "How did you ensure there were no firearms on the premises?" The operator of the daycare center better come up with an answer such as "there is a no firearms sign posted on the door" or "it is in the agreement we have parents sign that firearms are prohibited." IMHO.

    Now, I would think there would be a valid argument that "premises" would only include those places where children are actually being cared for such as the building and playground.
    I know a person that runs a daycare out of their home and they were given the OK to have them as long as they were locked up while children are there. I'm not sure if the powers that be are interpreting it as "make sure no child could have constructive possession of a gun." They can't exactly bar you from having a gun in your own home.
    Last edited by tombrewster421; 09-27-2012 at 03:23 PM.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    WAC 170-296-0800
    May I have weapons at my home?
    (1) You must keep weapons and ammunition in secure, locked storage, at all times during your operating hours.
    "Secure, locked storage" means a locked storage container, gun cabinet, gun safe, or other storage area made of
    strong, unbreakable material.
    (2) If the cabinet has a glass or other breakable front, the guns need to be secured with a cable or chain placed
    through the trigger guards securing the guns in the storage unit.
    (3) You must store all firearms unloaded.

    covers the owner/operator of a daycare

  11. #11
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The WAC is very clear. "ensure no firearm is on the premises." If a firearm were carried onto the premises by a parent, would not a firearm still be on the premises regardless of who was in possession of it? If the firearm carried by Joe Parent was discovered at the day care center, and the Department of Licensing was notified, and the DOL asked the operators, "How did you ensure there were no firearms on the premises?" The operator of the daycare center better come up with an answer such as "there is a no firearms sign posted on the door" or "it is in the agreement we have parents sign that firearms are prohibited." IMHO.

    Now, I would think there would be a valid argument that "premises" would only include those places where children are actually being cared for such as the building and playground.
    Who is to "ensure no firearms"? That would be the staff members. The parents are not licensed for child care. If for some reason the staff members come of the knowledge a firearm is present. They would have to be proactive to make sure the firearm is removed accordingly. "Put your gun back in your car or be trespassed" like any other anti-gun property owner would say, except, a child care center is bound by its license.
    Last edited by DCKilla; 09-28-2012 at 04:44 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •